Electrocardiographic Imaging in Atrial Fibrillation: Selection of the Optimal Tikhonov-Regularization Parameter

R. Molero, Carlos Fambuena, A. Climent, M. Guillem
{"title":"Electrocardiographic Imaging in Atrial Fibrillation: Selection of the Optimal Tikhonov-Regularization Parameter","authors":"R. Molero, Carlos Fambuena, A. Climent, M. Guillem","doi":"10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) allows evaluating the complexity of atrial fibrillation (AF) signals using the Boundary Element Method and Tikhonov regularization. An accurate ECGI reconstruction is dependent on a proper selection of the regularization parameter <tex>$(\\lambda)$</tex>. In this work, two ranges of <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> are explored to evaluate the effect of <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> on the quality of the ECGI reconstruction. ECGIs of 20 AF patients were computed using zero (TO), first (T1) and second (T2) order Tikhonov regularization (TR) for two ranges ofv: from 10–<sup>9</sup> to 10<sup>2</sup> and 10–<sup>12</sup> to 10–<sup>4</sup>. Dominant frequencies (DF) and the number of rotors obtained with the two ranges and methods were compared. Zero-order Tikhonov showed to be more robust in <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> selection for different <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> ranges. For lower <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> ranges, higher DF was found <tex>$(T2,\\ p < 0.05)$</tex> and more rotors were detected for T1 and <tex>$T2(p < 0.01)$</tex>. Differences between TR methods compared by <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> ranges showed more variability in derived metrics for lower <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> range <tex>$(p < 0.01)$</tex>. Optimal ranges for <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> search differ among T0, T1 and T2. Election of lower than optimal <tex>$\\lambda$</tex> values result in an increased estimated electrical complexity.","PeriodicalId":126746,"journal":{"name":"2021 Computing in Cardiology (CinC)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 Computing in Cardiology (CinC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23919/cinc53138.2021.9662918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) allows evaluating the complexity of atrial fibrillation (AF) signals using the Boundary Element Method and Tikhonov regularization. An accurate ECGI reconstruction is dependent on a proper selection of the regularization parameter $(\lambda)$. In this work, two ranges of $\lambda$ are explored to evaluate the effect of $\lambda$ on the quality of the ECGI reconstruction. ECGIs of 20 AF patients were computed using zero (TO), first (T1) and second (T2) order Tikhonov regularization (TR) for two ranges ofv: from 10–9 to 102 and 10–12 to 10–4. Dominant frequencies (DF) and the number of rotors obtained with the two ranges and methods were compared. Zero-order Tikhonov showed to be more robust in $\lambda$ selection for different $\lambda$ ranges. For lower $\lambda$ ranges, higher DF was found $(T2,\ p < 0.05)$ and more rotors were detected for T1 and $T2(p < 0.01)$. Differences between TR methods compared by $\lambda$ ranges showed more variability in derived metrics for lower $\lambda$ range $(p < 0.01)$. Optimal ranges for $\lambda$ search differ among T0, T1 and T2. Election of lower than optimal $\lambda$ values result in an increased estimated electrical complexity.
心房颤动的心电图成像:最佳吉洪诺夫正则化参数的选择
心电图成像(ECGI)允许评估心房颤动(AF)信号的复杂性使用边界元方法和吉洪诺夫正则化。准确的ECGI重构依赖于正则化参数$(\lambda)$的正确选择。在这项工作中,我们探索了$\lambda$的两个范围,以评估$\lambda$对ECGI重建质量的影响。采用0 (TO)、1 (T1)、2 (T2)阶Tikhonov正则化(TR)计算20例房颤患者的ecgi,范围为10-9 ~ 102和10-12 ~ 10-4。比较了两种范围和方法得到的主频率(DF)和转子数。对于不同的$\lambda$范围,零阶Tikhonov在$\lambda$选择中表现出更强的鲁棒性。对于较低的$\lambda$范围,发现较高的DF $(T2, p < 0.05)$,并且在T1和$T2中检测到更多的转子(p < 0.01)$。与$\lambda$范围比较的TR方法之间的差异显示,较低$\lambda$范围$(p < 0.01)$的衍生指标差异更大。$\lambda$搜索的最佳范围在T0, T1和T2之间是不同的。选择低于最优的$\lambda$值会导致估计的电气复杂性增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信